If I remember right, we measured 24 or 26 to the belly on my YJ on 43's. Could have gotten the front lower easilly, but don't know how we could get the rear any lower. Frenched the springs and everything in the rear.
We have 2 or 3 to the bump and then 4 inches of bump travel in the front. I think we have 4 to the bump in the rear and then 2 inches of bump travel.Well said Duthvdub, I hope this doesn't turn into another lame ass thread with people taking pictures of their rigs sitting on the bumps. How about seing some low COG rigs with minimum 4" to the bumps and big tires.
That's why I don't fully understand this new super low fad. It might work in some areas but I have a lot of jagged rock chunks I wheel in...not nice smooth slick rock. It really can rip a ton of stuff up on the bottom and I hate smashing my crap on stuff all the time.Something to note, if you want to be really nice and low, you will need to be well skid plated. My belly skid stretches from the rear of the front spring to the front of the rear springs, with notches for the driveshafts. I still need to do a bit more skidplating due to the oil pan being exposed, smashed the hell out of it on the last trip.
True. But the end result is not a lower COG....it's a flatter belly with the same COG....but maybe not even the same. Might still be worse. There are no numbers to support that lifting the drivetrain 2 inches and lowering the rig 2 equates to anything. It's better than not lowering it....but not a guarantee. You might gain belly, but the overall COG could actually be slightly worse. It's a trade off.If you raise the DT 2”, then lower the whole rig down 2”, you have effectively put the drive train back in the same spot, and lowered everything else down around it.
How is that not, lowering your center of gravity (while keeping your belly height the same)?
Our sport is a game of inches, a lot of the time, so that small amount of clearance, and that small reduction in COG is a big deal, and worth it, to a lot of folks to gain.